I am talking with a friend and we're are guessing where the 787-10 for ual would go. The problem is half the Google searches says the plane can fly just over 8000 miles and the other half says 7400 miles. Did the range change over time? And which one is accurate?

Boeing's "brochure" range is around 7200nm. Real life range (aircraft at MTOW) will be closer to 4900 - 5000nm, depending on thrust settings, weather, etc.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Boeing's "brochure" range is around 7200nm. Real life range (aircraft at MTOW) will be closer to 4900 - 5000nm, depending on thrust settings, weather, etc.

Just to clarify, if you put two airports into http://www.gcmap.com , if they are within 5,000 nm, the 787-10 could be dispatched on those routes.

The longer range sounds like a ferry range (pilots only).

Lightsaber

Late addition:
This is a LHR range circle. There is definitely a business case for BA and VS to buy the 787-10 as an example.

Cut the range to 4500nm for hot such as DXB. High... The 787-10 would be a poor choice for Ethiopian due to ADD's altitude.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40lhr

The plane bis not a TPAC hauler nor Atlantic Europe to North Pacific Asia. But it is one heck of a combi...

Boeing did change the brochure range of all models a couple of years ago, adjusting them downward to be a bit more in line with real world operations. That might explain the different ranges on various websites.

On Boeing's website they give it a range of 6,430 nmi.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/#/technical-specs

NZ operates the 789 on Asian routes and now also to EZE and IAH. They're looking at the -10 as part of their 77E replacement programme. Here's what they said at the recent investor day:

"So the -10 is just a stretched version. And by maintaining that parts commonality, they've created a very efficient, extremely efficient, aircraft. The trade-off though, because there's always a trade-off, is that the range of that aircraft is less than you get with a 787-9 and less than you get with any of the other options. However, in the context of our network the range it offers would work well to Asia. So to put it in context, to give you - to bring it to life a little bit, the 767s we used to fly to Asia. So we used to fly them to Tokyo, to Shanghai, Hong Kong. The 787- 10 has got about the same range as that, so it suits that part of the network. It has obviously got dramatically better, like two generations between, cost economics than a 787 - sorry - than a 767".

So from the point of view of an experienced 789 operator the -10 offers 767ER range (and great economics). But they clearly don't see it as an option for US routes. (AKL-LAX is 5,650nm great circle, AKL-NRT 4,750).

The problem with aircraft range calculations is that you have to specify the payload, hence payload range graphs.
For example the 787-10 with full tanks and no payload can fly 8,600nm, and with a 58t payload can fly 4250nm. With 320pax it should go 6500nm
Stuffed to the rafters with 400 pax it can fly 5750nm.
By comparison the 789 can fly 9400nm with full tanks and no payload, with 58t payload can fly 5500nm, with 320 pax 7500nm and if you fit them in 7000nm with 400pax, and it does all this at 254T MTOW, which is why they are selling.


Ruscoe

The 787-10 is imho probably the best example of a perfectly 'maxed out' aircaft in terms of economics/profitability -as long as you A need the volume offered and B the route network in question can operate in the above stated real world of circa 4,800 nm.
BA is a good example with particular reference to their important group of mid and west coast US cities.Yes the 350-9 could do them but not as efficiently (even though it could cover the rest on N America).Its a lean mean machine!
One imagines the same will be true of Emirates and secondary European cities.
The origonal config' of the A350-10 (ie straight stretch) would (although larger) have fallen into the same category.However it appears their primary target clients needed more range hence the subsequent changes made to wing and engine.

lightsaber wrote:

There is definitely a business case for BA and VS to buy the 787-10 as an example.

I'm sure BA will be pleased about this - their long standing order for 12 of them with delivery starting next year won't be a disaster!

I neglected to mention 763ER range.
With full tanks and no payload can fly 7400nm
With 269 pax can fly 5000nm (787-10 7000nm)
With 47t payload can fly 4100nm (787-10 5250nm)


Ruscoe

I know it's been posted that UA plans to start flying the 787-10 from EWR, if 5,000nm is the accurate range for the 78J that gives it the capability to fly LAX-LHR and LAX-NRT. Those two routes I think could benefit from the new Polaris equipped 787s, LAX is a competitive market and the 78J with the Polaris cabin is a competitive product.

STT757 wrote:

I know it's been posted that UA plans to start flying the 787-10 from EWR, if 5,000nm is the accurate range for the 78J that gives it the capability to fly LAX-LHR and LAX-NRT. Those two routes I think could benefit from the new Polaris equipped 787s, LAX is a competitive market and the 78J with the Polaris cabin is a competitive product.

For flights to the EU and North Japan, the 787-10 would be a money maker. Any further and UA has other aircraft that should make more profit.

I personally see it as the perfect upgauge to the 763ER. Fly more people at such a lower CASM the market is stimulated.

I also think the 787-10 is a perfect replacement for the A330CEO.

Seriously, about the same cost per flight in high utilization duty... Much more cargo...

Lightsaber

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo.



The 787-10 can't do it because it has the 787-8 wing.

Boeing and helpers for 10 years have been working hard to downplay (average flightlenght), confuse (7200NM) and dismiss (further than A330), but somehow the airlines do understand their business. And I have good hope Boeing will come up with a more capable -10 in the future.

keesje wrote:

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo.

And then in the A330neo (and some MOM) threads we hear all about how the A333ceo is the Asian powerhouse, and how intra Asian pax and cargo is the important market in the future...

keesje,

Pretty sure I'd consider moving 280 passengers + 20,000 lbs of cargo 5,000 NM an amazing aircraft. This is what it was designed to do. There doesn't need to be any performance improvement. It will be one hell of a plane from an efficiency stand point.

5,000 NM covers LAX-LHR/CDG/AMS/NRT/HND, All of Europe from the East Coast and Nearly All Routes to South America from the East Coast. This is just naming a few options, but the point is, it's an incredibly remarkable and efficient aircraft for a vast majority of routes.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

keesje,

Pretty sure I'd consider moving 280 passengers + 20,000 lbs of cargo 5,000 NM an amazing aircraft. This is what it was designed to do. There doesn't need to be any performance improvement. It will be one hell of a plane from an efficiency stand point.

5,000 NM covers LAX-LHR/CDG/AMS/NRT/HND, All of Europe from the East Coast and Nearly All Routes to South America from the East Coast. This is just naming a few options, but the point is, it's an incredibly remarkable and efficient aircraft for a vast majority of routes.

Well in that case Boeing will just leave it as is and prosper. And Airbus even more.

¿Is possible a LHR-LAX in a B787-10 with full cargo?....are 4800NM

I recall LH were anticipated to order the -10 but rejected it at that time due to inadequate payload/range flexibility for the missions then envisaged. (Not to say that LH Group will never find a home for it)

keesje wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

keesje,

Pretty sure I'd consider moving 280 passengers + 20,000 lbs of cargo 5,000 NM an amazing aircraft. This is what it was designed to do. There doesn't need to be any performance improvement. It will be one hell of a plane from an efficiency stand point.

5,000 NM covers LAX-LHR/CDG/AMS/NRT/HND, All of Europe from the East Coast and Nearly All Routes to South America from the East Coast. This is just naming a few options, but the point is, it's an incredibly remarkable and efficient aircraft for a vast majority of routes.

Well in that case Boeing will just leave it as is and prosper. And Airbus even more.

Right, because every Airbus plane is better in every regard and on all missions than Boeing aircraft.

It's at the point now where every PiP will have a significant increase on it's desirability. I think its reasonable to suggest that Boeing can probably get an additional 5% out of it by way of engine updates and gradual weight and aero savings. That puts it's realistic usable range at 5500nm (assuming industry standard load factors of mid 80s as a basis for weights, which should be roughly the 280 pax line on the payload-range chart provided), which is sufficient for West Coast North America to Asia and Deep Europe, as well as East Coast North America to all of Europe and South America. For a carrier like UA, this could be a real winner, and they have already proven faith in concept by ordering. AA would benefit as well, given their current large fleet of 787s, the -10 would beast from DFW and MIA , it could cover nearly all of their potential routes (save for DFW-Asia, but they have the 789 and 77W for that). AC could use a large fleet to cover all of YYZ long Haul Flying save for the densest routes and Asia, and all of YVR long haul save for their longest sectors; HKG and Australia. While this is all contingent on a slight performance bump, history tells me this should be expected.

I do not think anybody is planning to use the 787-10 on the Pacific or Asia-Europe, with reason. Major 787-10 customers United, Singapore Airlines, Etihad and BA ordered A350 fleets to cover those segments.

It seems like 14 787-10s for United is a pretty low number given how many routes from ORD, EWR, IAD & IAH it would be perfect for. It would seem that those 14 could be sucked up right away should they spread them out even to SFO.
I believe they have options for more, but how long would delivery take from activating some of those options?
OR: will the ultimate arrival of the A350 for UA negate the need for more than 14?

the 787-10 is quite efficient for its practical range, a posted noted that NZ sees it as a great replacement for 767ER routes, with either a lot more payload at the range or more range with the 767 payload. There are many planes that can carry more or fly further but if it is within the capabilities of the -10 it will probably be the lowest cost plane for the route. That alone will make it a good seller, but less than the -9.

keesje wrote:

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo...The 787-10 can't do it because it has the 787-8 wing.

It can't do it because it doesn't have the TOW.

keesje wrote:

I do not think anybody is planning to use the 787-10 on the Pacific or Asia-Europe, with reason. Major 787-10 customers United, Singapore Airlines, Etihad and BA ordered A350 fleets to cover those segments.

Along with the 787-9.

So far, SQ has 337 seats in their B787-10 and UA have confirmed they will have 318 seats in theirs - this will reduce range somewhat.

Will be very interesting to see BA's version - if they copy the -8 and -9 layouts, their -10 will have 240-250 seats at most, allowing lots of range... but we keep hearing that BA wants to use the B787-10 on LON-NYC which doesn't require long range...

don't forget all the distance discussed so far is based on GC distance
take SFO-TPE as an example, the GC distance is 5620 nmi while the flight plane comes out as 5830 NGM and if you factor in wind (in winter) it'll add up to 6462 NAM (the NGM is actually pretty close to GC distance already as 6%+ longer NGM is pretty typical)
I would guess in real operation something around 4400 nmi for GC distance is more likely

keesje wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

keesje,

Pretty sure I'd consider moving 280 passengers + 20,000 lbs of cargo 5,000 NM an amazing aircraft. This is what it was designed to do. There doesn't need to be any performance improvement. It will be one hell of a plane from an efficiency stand point.

5,000 NM covers LAX-LHR/CDG/AMS/NRT/HND, All of Europe from the East Coast and Nearly All Routes to South America from the East Coast. This is just naming a few options, but the point is, it's an incredibly remarkable and efficient aircraft for a vast majority of routes.

Well in that case Boeing will just leave it as is and prosper. And Airbus even more.

Yes it will, just as the 330-300 was able to prosper fine against more capable aircraft of a similar generation. Every aircraft must not be capable of ULH.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo.

And then in the A330neo (and some MOM) threads we hear all about how the A333ceo is the Asian powerhouse, and how intra Asian pax and cargo is the important market in the future...

Judging by all the 330s around East and Southeast Asia, I'd say it is very much the Asian powerhouse. As waly777 says, not every aircraft needs ULH range. Regional flights aplenty, plus Australia.

The A330 came in 25 years ago and offered by then unique (cargo) capacity, range and commonality. Hauling the booming populations within Asia. Half of the A330 fleet were -200s used for opening up longer routes worldwide. To state the range limitation of the large, expensive 787-10 is ok, because the A333 didn't have a long range, seems opportunistic and not taking into account the market growth and changed competitive situation over the last 15 years.

Replacing the 772ER and 77W fleets Boeing offers the smallish 789, range restricted -10 and heavy and expensive 778 and -779.

The 789 seems an excellent performer and sells well and sooner or later Boeing will have to look at a 787-10ER like aircraft, 300-350 seats 8000NM isn't a niche... Sooner I think.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The 787-10 can't do it because it has the 787-8 wing.

It can't do it because it doesn't have the TOW.

simplistic.
More TOW would just move the wing loading through the roof with a vengeance.
Keesje is correct in stating that the 787-10 has the wing of the 228t 788
the 787-9 was supposed to get a slightly bigger wing already. ( dumped for time and cost constraints.)

The 787-10 is what it is.Brilliant if the limited range is ok for your needs -and you consistently require large pax loads.Its Frankly a stretch from the west coast USA to mainland Europe and particularly the other way against the prevailing weather.As pointed out its not really a trans Pacific plane .These longer distances tend to require a more powerful aircaft when moving large numbers of pax.But it does what it does very economically.I bet even Airbus was surprised what that little wing (and engines) could achieve.Well done Boeing.

keesje wrote:

The A330 came in 25 years ago and offered by then unique (cargo) capacity, range and commonality. Hauling the booming populations within Asia. Half of the A330 fleet were -200s used for opening up longer routes worldwide. To state the range limitation of the large, expensive 787-10 is ok, because the A333 didn't have a long range, seems opportunistic and not taking into account the market growth and changed competitive situation over the last 15 years.

Are those flights that all those airlines are using A330s within Asia suddenly getting longer? I was not aware the Earth’s tectonic plates were shifting that quickly.

You can’t say in one breath that the A330 was perfect for hauling passenger and cargo within “booming” Asia despite its range limitation and then say in the other breath that the 787-10 is ill suited for hauling passenger and cargo within booming Asia because of its range limitation when it has similar range to the latest A333s, if not a little more.
And we have proof of that- SQ has bought 49(!) of them. How do you think they will be used?

Starlionblue wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo.

And then in the A330neo (and some MOM) threads we hear all about how the A333ceo is the Asian powerhouse, and how intra Asian pax and cargo is the important market in the future...

Judging by all the 330s around East and Southeast Asia, I'd say it is very much the Asian powerhouse. As waly777 says, not every aircraft needs ULH range. Regional flights aplenty, plus Australia.

Oh I agree completely. I’m just pointing out Keesje’s contradiction in how the 787-10 is apparently terrible for Asia because it can’t fly TPAC. Because clearly a widebody can only be successfully in Asia if it has TPAC range. I don’t think he fully grasps the 787-10’s intended concept.

Polot wrote:

I don’t think he fully grasps the 787-10’s intended concept.

You should be salesman. Selling the 787-10 range restriction as an intended concept. IMO it is more have to deal with the restriction.

The A330-300 sold large numbers to airlines that used the A343 / 772ER for long heavy flights.

The 787-10 customer understand, that's why they bought A350 fleets too.

I feel the 787-10 is not significantly lighter, cheaper or fuel efficient than a A350-900. But it's limited on long haul.

It is also very efficient and has commonality with the quickly growing 787 fleets, which has cost advantages.

WIederling wrote:

Keesje is correct in stating that the 787-10 has the wing of the 228t 788

Dimension wise yes, structurally no.

WIederling wrote:

More TOW would just move the wing loading through the roof with a vengeance. Keesje is correct in stating that the 787-10 has the wing of the 228t 788
the 787-9 was supposed to get a slightly bigger wing already. ( dumped for time and cost constraints.)

I've heard that the wing (with the proper strengthening) could handle north of 290,000kg. And the extra 3 meters of span the 787-9 would have had improved aerodynamic efficiency, but at a 1:1 cost in empty weight inefficiency so there was no real benefit to adding it.

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don’t think he fully grasps the 787-10’s intended concept.

You should be salesman. Selling the 787-10 range restriction as an intended concept. IMO it is more have to deal with the restriction.

The A330-300 sold large numbers to airlines that used the A343 / 772ER for long heavy flights.

The 787-10 customer understand, that's why they bought A350 fleets too.

I feel the 787-10 is not significantly lighter, cheaper or fuel efficient than a A350-900. But it's limited on long haul.

It is also very efficient and has commonality with the quickly growing 787 fleets, which has cost advantages.

But it is an intended concept? The 763's and A333 sold well despite their limited range.... the 787-10 has slightly better range, can haul even more payload whilst cruising faster and at lower costs than either aircraft. It's size being similar to a 359 is irrelevant, it does not have to mirror the 359 and be capable of ULH. It's a medium to long haul aircraft which has a ripe market to replace in the coming years.

SQ is an example, i imagine there are more to come.

Somebody needs to tell Delta that their 763-ERs and 230t A332s, which have flown and are flying TPAC routes right now, that those planes don't have the range for TPAC.

For that matter, somebody needs to tell TAM and TK that their A333s/767s, both of which have less range than the 78J, that they are only regional planes and shouldn't be flying ~5000nm TATL routes like GRU-MXP and IST-ATL.

keesje wrote:

The A330-300 sold large numbers to airlines that used the A343 / 772ER for long heavy flights.

But only after the A330-300X (1996) and A330-300E (2006) arrived and could perform those medium heavy flights the original A330-300 could not do and had therefore required those airlines to also use their A343-300 and 777-200ER frames on.

Once the A330-300HGW could perform over 90% of the missions an A343 and 77E were actually doing in airline service, it's sales climbed while the other two declined.

The 787-10 is going to be able to perform a significant number of actual missions actual airlines currently are using A350-900s (and 787-9s) on.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all aircraft.

The 787-10 has superior fuel burn per payload volume and payload weight when compared to the A350-900.

However the A350-900 can comfortably fly 1500nm further with a similar payload or cabin.

Airlines with a network that had 10% of routes over 6500nm could purchase only A350-900's. The A350-900 would simply burn more fuel on medium stage lengths. This is however a significant ongoing cost.

The same airline couldn't buy only 787-10's as it could not fly the 10% longest routes. The 787-10 in most cases needs to be paired up with an aircraft with longer range.

The 787-9 is the obvious choice with a real world 1000nm extra range over the 787-10. It has high commonality and the same pilot rating so it makes the perfect combo.

Some airlines have routes that are a even stretch for the 787-9. So instead of running payload restrictions they'll go with the longer range A350-900 paired up with the efficient 787-10. San Francisco to Singapore is a good example here. Singapore airlines will have a big advantage over United 787-9's on this route. The A350-900 might burn approx 8% more fuel on the trip but it can carry 30-40% more payload by weight.

Stitch wrote:

The 787-10 is going to be able to perform a significant number of actual missions actual airlines currently are using A350-900s (and 787-9s) on.

the A330 wasn't a maxed out airframe like the 7810 is. ( with the A340 pedigree a light wing designed for efficient cruise starting with a TOW of 275t.)

Stitch wrote:

The 787-10 is going to be able to perform a significant number of actual missions actual airlines currently are using A350-900s (and 787-9s) on.

WIederling wrote:

the A330 wasn't a maxed out airframe like the 7810 is.

And as such, the 787-10 starts at peak performance from EIS whereas the A330-300 needed 20 years to reach that point.

keesje wrote:

Existing 300 seat workhorses like 777-200ER, A343 and A350 have been facilitating growth from Asia (hot, ~6000NM) with good cargo.



The 787-10 can't do it because it has the 787-8 wing.

Boeing and helpers for 10 years have been working hard to downplay (average flightlenght), confuse (7200NM) and dismiss (further than A330), but somehow the airlines do understand their business. And I have good hope Boeing will come up with a more capable -10 in the future.

I don't think this payload-range chart is true anymore ......
The information that's at least 2 years old is not valid already especially after all the improvement made on A350 during this time

waly777 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don’t think he fully grasps the 787-10’s intended concept.

You should be salesman. Selling the 787-10 range restriction as an intended concept. IMO it is more have to deal with the restriction.

The A330-300 sold large numbers to airlines that used the A343 / 772ER for long heavy flights.

The 787-10 customer understand, that's why they bought A350 fleets too.

I feel the 787-10 is not significantly lighter, cheaper or fuel efficient than a A350-900. But it's limited on long haul.

It is also very efficient and has commonality with the quickly growing 787 fleets, which has cost advantages.

But it is an intended concept? The 763's and A333 sold well despite their limited range.... the 787-10 has slightly better range, can haul even more payload whilst cruising faster and at lower costs than either aircraft. It's size being similar to a 359 is irrelevant, it does not have to mirror the 359 and be capable of ULH. It's a medium to long haul aircraft which has a ripe market to replace in the coming years.

SQ is an example, i imagine there are more to come.

IMHO, I don't think much order will happen.... Especially, looking at ANA, an all time Boeing fan with 80ish 787 on order only have 3 for -10 .....

JustSomeDood wrote:

Somebody needs to tell Delta that their 763-ERs and 230t A332s, which have flown and are flying TPAC routes right now, that those planes don't have the range for TPAC.

"TPAC" as shorthand can cause confusion. In terms of payload/range demands TransPacific to eg LAX out of A/NZ or Southeast Asia is completely different from the hop across the North Pacific. The 787-10 is not a TransPacific aircraft in either of those cases.

RJMAZ wrote:

Some airlines have routes that are a even stretch for the 787-9. So instead of running payload restrictions they'll go with the longer range A350-900 paired up with the efficient 787-10. San Francisco to Singapore is a good example here. Singapore airlines will have a big advantage over United 787-9's on this route. The A350-900 might burn approx 8% more fuel on the trip but it can carry 30-40% more payload by weight.

Horses for courses. Looks as if this is where NZ might be heading: stick with 789 for most Asian/some Tasman routes, buy a few 787-10s for higher volume/more premium Asian routes, 359 for the more demanding US/South American routes.

Stitch wrote:

Stitch wrote:

The 787-10 is going to be able to perform a significant number of actual missions actual airlines currently are using A350-900s (and 787-9s) on.

WIederling wrote:

the A330 wasn't a maxed out airframe like the 7810 is.

And as such, the 787-10 starts at peak performance from EIS whereas the A330-300 needed 20 years to reach that point.

no reserves.
as I said: a maxed out airframe from day one.

WIederling wrote:

no reserves. as I said: a maxed out airframe from day one.

The 777-300ER was maxed out from Day One and it sold decent enough.

tealnz wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Somebody needs to tell Delta that their 763-ERs and 230t A332s, which have flown and are flying TPAC routes right now, that those planes don't have the range for TPAC.

"TPAC" as shorthand can cause confusion. In terms of payload/range demands TransPacific to eg LAX out of A/NZ or Southeast Asia is completely different from the hop across the North Pacific. The 787-10 is not a TransPacific aircraft in either of those cases.

AKL-LAX and AKL-SFO have nearly identical sector lengths to SEA-HKG, the latter of which has been flown for years and years with 230t A332s, an aircraft with a significantly worse payload-range curve than the 78J. Air NZ wants to be able to carry gigantic amounts of payload at range simply because their lucrative cargo business allows such payload capability to be turned into profit consistently. That absolutely cannot be said for the vast majority of other airlines.

JustSomeDood wrote:

AKL-LAX and AKL-SFO have nearly identical sector lengths to SEA-HKG, the latter of which has been flown for years and years with 230t A332s, an aircraft with a significantly worse payload-range curve than the 78J. Air NZ wants to be able to carry gigantic amounts of payload at range simply because their lucrative cargo business allows such payload capability to be turned into profit consistently. That absolutely cannot be said for the vast majority of other airlines.

Yeah and the classic North Pacific routes - to Narita - are a couple of hours shorter. We could keep trading examples. The point is the -10 isn't designed for the longer end of long-haul. Sure, it could be abused on some routes - by blocking seats, dropping cargo. Qantas did the same with their 332s on Auckland-Los Angeles. We know how that ended.
Seems to me it's fairer just to see the -10 as a great fit for regional and long haul routes of the sort the 767ERs flew so successfully, while also offering a big step up in capacity. It's not going to be the aircraft that transforms the economics of crossing the Pacific.

JustSomeDood wrote:

tealnz wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Somebody needs to tell Delta that their 763-ERs and 230t A332s, which have flown and are flying TPAC routes right now, that those planes don't have the range for TPAC.

"TPAC" as shorthand can cause confusion. In terms of payload/range demands TransPacific to eg LAX out of A/NZ or Southeast Asia is completely different from the hop across the North Pacific. The 787-10 is not a TransPacific aircraft in either of those cases.

AKL-LAX and AKL-SFO have nearly identical sector lengths to SEA-HKG, the latter of which has been flown for years and years with 230t A332s, an aircraft with a significantly worse payload-range curve than the 78J. Air NZ wants to be able to carry gigantic amounts of payload at range simply because their lucrative cargo business allows such payload capability to be turned into profit consistently. That absolutely cannot be said for the vast majority of other airlines.

my understanding is SEA-HKG is constantly under payload restriction especially westbound....
I don't expect -10 will do any much better if it is running AKL-SFO
the GC distance is 5660 nmi already and the actual routing will turn 5750 nmi
factoring headwind can push to 6000 NAM on westbound easily
obviously not much payload can be carried even by -10

kevin5345179 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

tealnz wrote:

"TPAC" as shorthand can cause confusion. In terms of payload/range demands TransPacific to eg LAX out of A/NZ or Southeast Asia is completely different from the hop across the North Pacific. The 787-10 is not a TransPacific aircraft in either of those cases.

AKL-LAX and AKL-SFO have nearly identical sector lengths to SEA-HKG, the latter of which has been flown for years and years with 230t A332s, an aircraft with a significantly worse payload-range curve than the 78J. Air NZ wants to be able to carry gigantic amounts of payload at range simply because their lucrative cargo business allows such payload capability to be turned into profit consistently. That absolutely cannot be said for the vast majority of other airlines.

my understanding is SEA-HKG is constantly under payload restriction especially westbound....
I don't expect -10 will do any much better if it is running AKL-SFO
the GC distance is 5660 nmi already and the actual routing will turn 5750 nmi
factoring headwind can push to 6000 NAM on westbound easily
obviously not much payload can be carried even by -10

Whatever payload restriction there has been on HKG-SEA, it's not been material enough to stop DL from recording a load factor for the route in the mid 80%s, in line with other TPAC flights. It's not as if HKG-SEA was an oddly long sector for those A332s, they also flew DTW-PEK (pre-A350), DTW-NGO, and DTW-NRT (pre-A350).

Boeing quotes the 787-10 as capable of carrying 33t of payload a nominal range of 6430nm.

tealnz wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

AKL-LAX and AKL-SFO have nearly identical sector lengths to SEA-HKG, the latter of which has been flown for years and years with 230t A332s, an aircraft with a significantly worse payload-range curve than the 78J. Air NZ wants to be able to carry gigantic amounts of payload at range simply because their lucrative cargo business allows such payload capability to be turned into profit consistently. That absolutely cannot be said for the vast majority of other airlines.

Yeah and the classic North Pacific routes - to Narita - are a couple of hours shorter. We could keep trading examples. The point is the -10 isn't designed for the longer end of long-haul. Sure, it could be abused on some routes - by blocking seats, dropping cargo. Qantas did the same with their 332s on Auckland-Los Angeles. We know how that ended.
Seems to me it's fairer just to see the -10 as a great fit for regional and long haul routes of the sort the 767ERs flew so successfully, while also offering a big step up in capacity. It's not going to be the aircraft that transforms the economics of crossing the Pacific.

See above, at least 1 airline has thought it possible and economically viable to fly aircraft with similar range to the 787-10 on a fair amount of ~5500+nm TPAC routes.

From viewtopic.php?t=1397051

[quote=]
Top Foreign International Gateway Airports
1. LHR - 14,616,262
2. CUN - 9,199,179
3. MEX - 7,865,904
4. CDG - 7,173,685
5. NRT - 7,097,417
6. FRA - 6,711,520
7. ICN - 6,199,353
8. AMS - 5,232,213
9. HKG - 3,414,330
10. GDL - 3,384,431

Top US-Intl Nation Air Markets
1. Mexico - 29,823,778
2. UK - 19,660,250
3. Germany - 10,846,613
4. Japan - 10,691,287
5, China (not incl HKG/TPE) - 7,942,823
6. France - 7,551,804
7. Dominican Republic - 6,851,829
8. Korea - 6,689,141
9. Netherlands - 5,285,935
10. Brazil - 4,465,485
[/quote]

Notice that the top 2 foreign airport traffic for TPAC, by far, are NRT and ICN, which both reach a very large amount of North America with 5500nm (HND also has a fair amount of US-bound traffic) . Of the US-China traffic, over 80% come from PVG and PEK, both of which also reach a good amount of NA from ~5500nm. That covers a lot of routes, of which the 78J can fly with very good economics.

Who is the launch customer for the 787-10? I read United is first in the USA, but who gets to smash the champagne bottle first?